Re: My questions are...
if the ship is in moral peril.
...I've heard that sailors can be quite immoral...
5761 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Jul 2010
He jumped bail - or are you claiming that his observably (and well documented) doing of such was actually a lie from the judge? That's what he has been sent down for. As far as clear-cut cases go, I'm not sure how much clearer you could get.
As for "misuse of taxpayers millions"; presumably you are arguing that spending money on policing and holding everyone to the same level of accountability is misuse of money? Because he's "famous", he shoudl have been allowed to jump bail with no consequences? Really, just give it a rest. He committed a crime, got arrested, had a fair trial, was convicted on the evidence and got sent down - that's the justice system working properly.
You missed out the fact it is going to require batteries, that will need charging.
Given that this only has to work when the trolley is in motion, dynamos on the wheels and a bank of capacitors should do the trick. Of course, then people are going to repurpose them to make home-made cattleprods...
IMHO, devs are the ones who should be issued with the steelies in order to administer the kickings, usually to the sales / marketing droids or PMs who have promised functionality to the client that not only does not exist, but cannot be made to exist in the timescale that they have made up to meet their quarterly sales targets, because they have zero technical knowledge of the thing they are allegedly an expert in, and care only about when they'll be able to buy their next new Audi or where their next baggy of coke is coming from.
And this is why core security functions (such as password verification / encryption etc.) should be baked into the silicon, not flashed into firmware. Admittedly this means that if there is a flaw in your implementation then you can't fix it without replacing the hardware, but that's why you stick to reference implementations and don't roll your own...
I bet you they won't play this new ██████ing song.
It's not that it's ██████ or ██████ controversial,
It's just that the ██████ words are awfully strong.
You can't say ██████ on the radio, or ██████, or ██████, or ██████.
You can't even say I'd like to ██████ you some day,
Unless you're a doctor with a very large ██████.
So I bet you they won't play this song on the radio,
I bet you they won't ██████ing well programme it.
I bet you the ██████ing old programme directors
will think it's a load of horse██████.
...in terms of stability of orbits, if you have two widely spaced stars, planets around either are not going to be graviotationally affected very much by the distant star (think about how much Jupiter affects the Earth's orbit for example). On the other hand, if there are two co-orbiting stars surrounded by planets (such as in this system), you might expect some crazy tides (in the same way as spring and neap tides are affected by the relative positions fo the Sun and Moon). Depending on the mass of the stars, and how closely they orbit each other, such planetary orbits may be less affected than you might think.
I think the way it works is that if the stars are co-orbiting (i.e., in the centre of the system, with planets orbiting both), they're named as above. If there are two stars far apart, these would be A and B, and if they have planets orbiting them, they would be Ab, Ac... and Bb, Bc... respectively.
I think the planet naming is further complicated by the fact that they tend to be named in the order they are discovered, rather than their distance from their parent star, hence the rather confusing 'd' being between 'b' and 'c' - naming them after the distance form the star would also be problematic for objects with highly elliptical orbits that may cross over each other, objects that orbit in different planes, etc.
Cleaner comes round and discovers they can actually get in to somewhere they don't normally go.
To be fair, you're assuming it's the same cleaner from one day to the next. As far as I am aware, it is a badly-paid low-skilled job with crappy conditions, and the associated high staff turnover you might expect. The cleaner in question could well have been on their first day at that location.
The place where I used to work, it was a case of "sparky unplugged the server" becasue they'd got the cheapest dodgy electrician / carpenter in to re-wire the server room with a redundant circuit and put int a raised floor whilst the servers were running, and he wanted to plug his drill in...
Instead of filming that and being done with it, they'll string it out until they get cancelled
Neil Gaiman has apprently been closely involved in the series, and one would hope that he won't allow that to happen (he has already effectively said the same about the upcoming adaptation of Good Omens - it will end where the book ends and not get any sequels).
Here, let me google that for you...
The article says they were arrested "on suspicion of aggravated assault". However, if they both consented, was such an offence actually committed (other than against common sense)?
Of course, there may well be other statutes that they have violated, but then that's what they should be arrested for...
I'm no chip designer, but surely it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility for Intel to bake the paths for this into all their chips, for debuggin purposes, and then just dike it out for the RTM version? If nothing else, they're presumably giving away secrets to their competitors by not doing so...
It's nothing to do with being popular, although the ubiquity of Chris Martin's whiny tones didn't do anything to lessen the level of aggravation caused by hearing them.
My personal dislike for them stems from the combination of their bland monotony, and the fact that their front-man is an unbearably smug git with a Jesus complex.
I think it's fair to say that the consent data may no longer be in existence, but surely VL should have been able to produce evidence that it was gaining consent?
Such as a copy of the leaflets they sent out that said, "by giving us your mobile number, you consent to being contacted" with the little (unticked) box next to it?
I think the pertinent question is whether such a thing actually existed. I find it hard to believe that there would now be no evidence of it if it had. Much as I disagree with pretty much everything put out by VL, if the ICO has evidence that they were obtaining consent for communications, but now no longer hold the details of specific consents, then they really should have no case to answer.
I reckon the ICO know this too, not being entirely inexperienced in being a regulator, so I reckon on balance, VL were asked to produce such evidence, and were either unable or unwilling to do so.
How many times does it have to be done though? Does a vote for remain just count as a draw so we go best out of three?
If you take into account the first referendum in 1975, it's already 1 all.
What? You mean it's okay for leavers to keep having referendums until they get the answer they want?
I randomly picked a town where the population is about 250k. The number of cells in the human body is 30-40 trillion, and the population of Swansea is apparently 241,300. 2^63 is approx 9.2 x 10^18 so this works out pretty spot on if you take the number of cells in the human body as 38.2 trillion...
So, if you took every single cell of every single human being in Swansea and allocated each a random 63 bit ID, you'd expect a 50/50 chance of getting a previously assigned number when you got to around the 120,000th person.
They've corrected it, and are now feeling smug. The top bit will now NEVER be zero.
Don't be silly, the value for the bit has to be evenly distributed between ones and zeroes. They've actually decided to look at the phase of the moon and if it's waxing, it's a 1, and if it's waning, it's a 0. When it's a full moon, all certificates turn into wolves.
To put this into perspective:
Imagine you have a chess board (which convieniently happens to have 64 squares on it). You also have a bag of 64 pawns. Your job is to put a random number of those pawns onto any arrangement of squares on the board and not get the same arrangement as someone else.
This flaw means that you can never put a pawn on the bottom right square. It has no impact on those other 63 squares. Embarassing, yes, but it doesn't exactly 'dramatically reduce' the number of available combinations you have (It halves an already pretty big number, you still have almost 10^19 combinations to play with, which to put it in perspective is roughly the number of human cells in the population of swansea).
I think the important thing to take note of here is that you were fixing problems for intellignet people with good degrees, and technical jobs.
Now try the same thig with a room full of salespeople or project managers, and see how much gratitude you get. You'll probably get back to your desk and receive a pile of complaints about how you didn't offer to make anyone a coffee.
I believe the 'hardware tools' in question do involve disassembly of the drive in a clean room, and application of something more advanced than your standard drvie head, or at the very least, replacement of the disk controller to distinguish between that 1.0 and 1.01. I don't think it's nation state level stuff, more specialist forensic crime lab type stuff. You're probably still talking tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds, but I believe the capability exists.